If you are new to the forums, you must register a free account before you can post. The forums have a separate registration from the rest of www.chronofhorse.com, so your log in information for one will not automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Well, see...I actually agree with part of your last paragraph...If someone is a gun enthusiast/NRA member, they most likely will vote Republican. If someone is Right wing Christian, they are more likely to vote Republican. If someone is racist against blacks/minorities they would be more likely to vote Republican. And I'll go one step further and say that the whackos at westboro church, will probably vote repub.
But whereas I accept that certain groups will most likely vote a certain way, you don't want to admit it.
And for the record, the race issue was actually started by a liberal, Obama supporter on this thread that brought up riots, and inferred that Repubs were racist thinking that it was blacks that would riot because they were "uppity" (the Obama supporter's words). My comment was initially about when did you last see a bunch of Repubs riot. I don't think there will be widespread rioting if Obama loses, but it wouldn't shock me if there were small pockets of it in LA for instance. But I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there won't be rioting by Romney supporters.

Republicans don't riot! They just get Goldman Sachs on the phone and say, "Round up the usual muppets! We've got some short selling to do!"

You sure about that? The four dead were not the only Americans on the scene. There is already both testimony and leaked communication that has noted that we had assets on the ground painting the terrorist with lasers for AC-130/MC-130 gunships that were less than 2 hours away and we know that the two former SEALS were killed at least 6 hours after the attack began. We know that the commanding General of these assets was given an order to stand down that could have only come from D.C.--i.e from a small handful of people all of whom would be close to the president. That General has since been relieved of command.

The problems for Obama are several:
1) Failure to provide the consulate with adequate security. Although this is a big problem for Clinton since there is all kinds of paper trails that have repeated requests for more security as well as a State Dept meeting less than a month before hand that covered the extent to which al qaeda was active in the area.

2) Failure to deploy assets while the lives of up to 32 Americans were at risk. The dead were not the only ones at the consulate or safe house at the time of attack, we know of 3 staff members transferred Germany for treatment in the hospital as well as 2 others that were wounded in the safe house attack--funny but the administration has yet to released the number of Americans that were in harms way.)

3)Failure to secure the consulate after the attack in a timely manner. It was weeks before it was secure and in the mean time CNN reporters were wandering through and one removed Ambassador Steven's diary. What other sensitive documents might have been in the unsecured consulate?

4)Specifically misleading the public by not confirming the attack was an act of terrorism when we have information that not only did he know but the White House Situation room had live audio of the attack from the Americans who were repeatedly asking for assistance before they were killed and drones capturing video feed--see number 2.

Anyone think that this would have looked bad on the campaign trail if one of your big talking points is you killed bin Laden?

grayarabpony, I'm sorry all this bores you.

Yes I am sure. If the military was present there would have been casualties. Military casualties at the very least.

This "scandal" is a tempest in a teapot compared to going to Iraq based on false information.

I keep forgetting. No matter what happens, it is NOT OBAMAS' FAULT. Just ask him. And if it is his fault, well, Bush was worse.

Just amazing.

I think, though what is the worst, is the level of anger from all sides. We're Americans first, right?

Nope, because every time over the last 4 years I've have heard Obama say "the other guys", "the other side", "vote for revenge", "punish your enemies", it has driven the country further apart. This is a sitting PRESIDENT saying these things.

And, nope I don't care what senators, and pundits, and congressmen/women Rush, Rachel, etc., etc., have said, it's what the president said. And he should be EVERYONE's president. Not just "his side". So I guess he wants his side to go out and get "revenge".
Presumably against people like me. The "other side".

Kind of like what he said to Eric Cantor his FIRST week in office. "Elections have consequences Eric, and I won". How nice for him. And what a great way to start out his relationship. Talk about reaching across the aisle!

And for what it's worth - white female, highly educated, over $100k in earnings, in a mixed race relationship.

Voted for Romney this morning. I chose not to vote revenge. i voted for love of country.

Yawn. What I find amazing is your inability to answer questions and spout -- what is it? Some nonsense about how voting for Romney is patriotic and how Obama is the only one drawing lines in the sand.

fwiw, I am white, middle-aged, highly educated, married, in a household with over 100K in income. So?

I find it sad that those that support Romney/Ryan have a hard time with facts and the truth. I guess that is how one could support a candidate who says whatever the crowd wants to hear and does not take a stand.

I asked about your claim "highly educated". You made the claim. Maybe you should read what you write. I am very happy to be on your ignore list, there is no sense to responding to people's claims when they are offended to do so.

Yes, of course. I forgot that Saddam Hussien was a peace loving guy who didn't support those nasty AlQuida terrorists. Terrible that we forced that nice man out of his position helping women and children be REAL citizens of his nation.

The POINT is that there were WMDs in Iraq, most got buried and some got sold to the highest bidder. The WMDs are why we went in, 9/11 was the catalyst.
You can call Iraq a scandal/tragedy/whatever you want, but the majority of the men and women who went OVER there do not. Their opinion matters WAY more than yours.

Maybe in your imaginary world it does, but in the real world voters have sway. The military does not get to call the shots on its own, nor should it.

The truth is is that our military has also killed thousands of REAL citizens of Iraq. Does that not compute with you? Do you think it doesn't count, or doesn't matter? Yes Saddam Hussein was a monster, but he wasn't going to last that much longer and his crazy sons probably wouldn't have lasted a week. It is questionable whether or not things are better for most Iraquis since the start of the war.